Tuesday, September 3, 2013

The Gospel According to Kevin

On Q&A last night, Kevin Rudd explained his conversion to the gay marriage cause as no violation of scripture, alluding to St Paul's alleged endorsement of slavery and from there leaping somehow to the conclusion that those who oppose "marriage equality" would have been morally obliged to take up arms for the Confederacy.What this tells us is that there is nothing this wretched facsimile of a man will not twist or misrepresent to advance his cause, which we knew, and that he has not lately read his Old Testament, especially Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.

16 He
shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall
choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not
oppress him.

As to Saint Paul, who cops quite enough grief already from feminists, Rudd was thinking of the Apostle's letter to Philemon, which does indeed record the returning of a slave to his master. Yet contrary to Rudd's assertion, it is also quite clear that Paul, who was in prison at the time, has come to accept and endorse same-sex action. He makes that very clear in verse 7:

For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

Paul and the runaway follow Tom of Finland's latest adventures

All scriptural knee-slappers aside, if Rudd had not been intent on misrepresenting Paul he would have been obliged to explain that, while honouring the law, the Apostle also dropped a very broad hint that manumission would be a fine thing indeed.

But that wouldn't have been Rudd's style. Why tell the truth when a lie will do?

19 comments:

He was at his absolute lecturing worst on Q and A, Prof. Squirming in my seat the whole dreadful hour. Da Hairy Ape covering his head with his arms and making little noises of pain and disgust. It is our duty, I told him, to take one for the Nation and really find out the demented and self-justificatory lying depths of this man. Rudd didn't disappoint.

Da Hairy Ape sounds quite noble. Me? I stopped watching TV in 2010 when JG became a frequent lyer. The Dalek voice and the crap she was saying irritated me beyond endurance. The only time I've watched TV since then was the last QLD election results broadcast. What a treat that was.

I'm not sure which will be the more entertaining, Labor losing the election or the blood-letting afterwards. Given the previous abuse of Kevin by his colleagues I wonder if that could possibly be topped. What's more abusive than "psychopath"?

To lift a favourite line from The Wild Bunch, the post-election spleen will be "better than a hog killing". Picture it: Just as the Gillardians who have absented themselves from Cabinet and the campaign are paying out on Rudd, their heroine will be charged over the AWU affair.

Thank you for that Prof, as a 9 year old on a fishing holiday with my dad at Huskisson on the NSW south coast I once had a fishing hook caught in the front of my shorts - most painful.

Rudd may call himself a Christian but he is what we in the trade call a Scripture Twister. He seems to indicate that St Paul endorses slavery. Paul does nothing of the sort. In fact in 1 Timothy1:10 he condemns slave trading (along with quite a few other things) as "contrary to sound doctrine".

Slavery was commonplace in that culture. It was terrible but St Paul wrote to people who still had to live in that culture. That Rudd a supposedly intelligent man can twist this to an argument that favours "marriage equality" (an oxmoron surely) shows what a man will do to get a vote.

Sounds like something a bloke wearing a white sheet would say to justify his stuff.

'Real Deal', just by way, slavery wasn't necessarily terrible. It wasn't like the modern African slave trade (although no doubt some slave classes were treated equally as poorly). The Jews, understanding the political weakness of slaves, did in fact have very strong laws to protect their rights, just as they did for widows and orphans. This was the basis of Paul's comments on the matter.

Nearly all of Paul's commentary was in fact designed to drill down to the concept of resurrection, to remind Christians that they already existed as justified inheritors of a future resurrection body. He urged them to try to meet that standard by living as resurrected people should live.

I doubt that sexually gratifying oneself with all and sundry was part of Paul's idea of living such a life, particularly when Genesis explicitly claims that marriage is for a man and a woman.

I think I should just mention here that I was absolutely delighted to discover that some of my ancestors were slave owners in the West Indies in the 18th century. Their descendants gave my grandfather, a genuine WW1 hero, a very hard time around 1920 when he was courting my grandmother because they were "gentry" and my grandfather was "in trade". If only he'd known about it :-)

The 'science' of sexuality is completely routed by politically motivated interference.

It's plainly obvious to me that people are neither born nor not born gay, human psychology just isn't clear cut like that.

Some people are born ugly and choose homosexuality in lieu of that.

Some people have bad experiences with the opposing gender which puts them off (e.g. touchy daddy).

Some are just horny devils who don't care what others think (if it feels good do it - some gay/bi men).

And some, or most, might even be born with wires crossed. I don't doubt that at all - some people are even born of indeterminate gender due to chromosome disorders.

And you know what, none of it matters.

We let people decide their own sexual affairs because we're a liberal leaning society which respects the rights of adults to choose - for whatever reason they bloody well want.

I don't see why the marriage argument should be framed around 'natural' or not. What would they say if ground breaking science reported that it isn't decided at birth? I'm fine because I never thought it mattered anyway, they on the other hand have a problem when that happens.

I reckon Kev might have swung a few votes with that little flourish. I got the feeling scanning through the comments that there were a few more than just the regular cage rattlers. Comments like "I caught something on the radio and decided to check out Q&A and ...." It's good to see Kev bringing in a wider circle. That there will be a fundamental falling off of the ALP vote is a given but I wan't to see Kev do more to reach out to offend and alienate those, as yet, untouched by his message. What I would like to see is a worse loss under Rudd than was projected under Gillard. Go Kev Go - we know you have it in you !!

In the past I would have generally thought that for a bloke any irresistible desire to mate with a pair of male buttocks was definitely a sign of abnormality. But looking up the subject it appears that this view is now considered a form of hate crime. One can only admire the efficacy of gay propaganda.

Yahweh's opinion in the good old days was fairly clear :

"The man who lies with a man in the same way as with a woman; they have done a hateful thing together; they must die, their blood shall be upon their own heads." Leviticus 20:18

To be fair to bottom desirers everywhere, Yahweh also urges a quick death upon those who commit adultery, lie with their daughters-in-law and wives of their paternal uncles, along with various varieties of incest, lying with beasts and other improper sexual activities too numerous to mention.

Is it abnormal these days for a bloke to not desire to commit lust upon another bloke's bottom? Thats what I want to know.